The self-absorption and self-elevation of the mainstream media in disparaging our military efforts, complaining about being kept out of the information loop, and asserting their neutrality in the war never cease to inspire shock and disgust.

Some of these reporters sound like spoiled brats completely oblivious to the gravity and sensitivity of the military matters they are covering. It's all about them and their lofty mission to inform the public, irrespective of the risks involved in prematurely releasing classified information.

At Thursday's Centcom briefing, a New York Magazine reporter whined about the quality and timeliness of the information the military was sharing. He asked why General Tommy Franks wasn't at their beck and call, rather than running the war.

General Brooks deftly responded, "First, I would say it's your choice." Translation: "There's the door; don't let it hit you in the rear on your way out." As for Tommy Franks, "He's fighting a war right now."

But there's something worse than their puerile objections to being denied access to details, the release of which could cost American lives. Many media players apparently view themselves as watchdogs over a presumptively corrupt and imperialistic military industrial complex acting at the behest of neoconservative warmongers to make Iraq a wholly-owned American subsidiary.

They ask rhetorical questions with pointed messages instead of those seeking to elicit information. It's as if they are on a mission to prove their lack of bias by being attack dogs. Their reasoning -- in the case of American reporters, at least -- must be that they serve the unique function of safeguarding the First Amendment, which is the highest patriotic calling. As long as they challenge the military loudly, disbelievingly and rudely enough, they are proving their mettle, not to mention their suitability for a Nobel Peace Prize, the Helen Thomas award for reporter-impertinence and invitations to elite cocktail parties in the Beltway/New York milieu.

In the process, instead of disproving their bias, they reveal it -- a bias against the Allied war effort or designed to embarrass the administration. Several questions at Wednesday's Centcom briefing charged the administration with covering up its killing of Iraq civilians with misguided bombs, suggesting its press briefings "are more propaganda than truth." Questions at Friday's briefing implied the administration would conceal news about American casualties and our successes to paint a falsely optimistic picture to Americans. Questioners also hinted that the war effort was exacerbating, rather than ameliorating Iraq's humanitarian crisis.

Even more outrageous is this notion among some in the American media that their obligation to be objective in their reportage requires them to be neutral in the war. How can we ever forget when ABC News President David Westin, during a panel discussion at Columbia University, asserted a duty to stay neutral as to the terrorist attacks. When asked whether the Pentagon was a legitimate target for the terrorists he said, "I actually don't have an opinion on that, and it's important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now."

You might think this offensively knuckle-headed sentiment died with Westin's subsequent apology, but think again. The Washington Post in a "news" story chided talk radio and cable TV for being too patriotic and supportive of the war and for under-reporting the anti-war protest movement -- a charge, by the way, echoed by the ever-frustrated Al Gore at a recent speech at Middle Tennessee State.

Media analysts, though, take the cake. Harvard's Alex Jones said that members of the media expressing their patriotism are doing so as part of a calculation -- presumably economic, "despite any kind of journalistic cost." And analyst Eric Burns mildly chastised Fox's Shepherd Smith for his and other reporters' routine reference to American soldiers as "our troops." Burns said it would be better if reporters didn't taint their objectivity by identifying with America's troops.

No, Eric, and Alex, what would taint them is a feigned indifference -- you don't overcome a bias by lying about it. There is nothing wrong with American reporters being supportive of America and nothing inconsistent therein with their duty to accurately report. There is everything wrong with American reporters pretending to be or actually being impartial.

It is no accident that an alternative media, in talk radio, the Internet and cable television has graciously risen up with a vengeance to report and analyze the news, without the artificial anti-Western filter through which much of the mainstream media often disseminates its news.

I'd like to hope that maybe my job as a journalist is at a tad bit more "honorable" level since I'm also serving in the Army as well. Most of the civilian media view us military journalists as merely spin doctors. But from what I've seen, some of us could write and shoot video rings around our civilian counterparts. LOL!

3
posted on 03/29/2003 6:08:01 AM PST
by txradioguy
(HOOAH! Not just a word, A way of life!)

They once were able to ask questions that were informative and insightful. The questions I've heard since this started are just stupid for the most part concentrating on trivia. They don't seem to be able to assimilate information and ask cogent questions. They ask the same silly things in different ways over and over and over. Even Larry King, that master of the trivial has more insight than these people.

Is it them, or their schooling, or the networks or what???

4
posted on 03/29/2003 6:13:18 AM PST
by OpusatFR
(How can war protesters support Saddam when he is killing his own people! What sort of evil are you?)

I find this "slant" by the mainstream media very frightening. It is glaringly obvious that these people do not care about this country nor the people who are fighting and dying to protect their ability to do what they do. Without the Internet and talk radio I truly do not know where the country would be right now. It is in difficult straits WITH the Internet and talk radio.

I'd say all of the above. IMHO the "mainstream" media are the self-ordained conscious of this country whether we like it or not. They view us as sheep who are merely supposed to believe 100% their version of the news and not ask questions. Most of the "mainstream" media can't fathom the fact that you and I can actually think on our own and possibly not believe the news as they report it. Are there exceptions? Yes there are. But I find there are far more Bob Simon's than there are Sheppard Smith's.

7
posted on 03/29/2003 6:18:44 AM PST
by txradioguy
(HOOAH! Not just a word, A way of life!)

I watched that briefing where the guy wanted 4-star General Tommy Franks instead of 1-star General Brooks. At one point Gen. Brooks had to say something like this, "I can tell who is telling the truth in this room. It's me!"

BTW, Gen. Brooks is black. Can you imagine the firestorm that would have erupted if that question had come from, say, The Christian Science Monitor?

9
posted on 03/29/2003 6:20:28 AM PST
by libertylover
(Republican, because I care.)

I have to admit when I first got into this job I didn't buy the stories about "spin". Then I got a BIG dose of what it's about when I was in Somalia. The vast difference in the info we were putting out and what the "journalists" were writing in their stories saddened and enraged me at the same time. Until FNC came along, I vowed that I would never work for one of the networks if the opportunity arose. Now with Fox, I might have to rethink my position when I retire.

10
posted on 03/29/2003 6:22:05 AM PST
by txradioguy
(HOOAH! Not just a word, A way of life!)

So true. I can not imagine if there were only ABC/CBS/NBC. By now, I would be under the impression that Saddam Hussein was massing his troops around Washington, DC rather than the coalition troops around Baghdad.

Great comment on the state of liberal media thought. A lie is equal to the truth if it's cute enough for liberals to believe.

A few months ago a CBS talking head suggested reporters not tell their political affiliation -- as a way to counter the perception of the press being all liberal. The lie of being "independent" would trump complaints of liberal bias and control. (As thought it's the name, not the rose ... or the skunk -- whatever). Would CBS have suggested telling blacks during the civil rights struggle that white TV commentators would put bags on their heads so no one would know they were all white? That a lie would be better than adding a few black journalist to the staff?

The media lives in a group think bubble. Look at the prizes given out for excellence in journalism. Anti-American stuff wins prizes.

No, Eric, and Alex, what would taint them is a feigned indifference -- you don't overcome a bias by lying about it.

analyst Eric Burns mildly chastised Fox's Shepherd Smith for his and other reporters' routine reference to American soldiers as "our troops." Burns said it would be better if reporters didn't taint their objectivity by identifying with America's troops.

This is the latest talking point from the left. There was a "professor" from NYU on O'Reilly last night touting the same BS.

"BTW, Gen. Brooks is black. Can you imagine the firestorm that would have erupted if that question had come from, say, The Christian Science Monitor?"

Yeah I can imagine it. Someone needs to ask Jesse, Al, Charlie Rangel and Sgt. Akbar's step dad what they think of a black man with a star on his collar. Especially since Sgt. Akbar's step dad made the absolutely HEINOUS statement that the army is 'racist" and "a black man will never achieve a position of power in the U.S. Army." The commander of Forces Command is black.....the commander of the Air National Guard is black...and his father was the FIRST Black General in the military. I WISH someone in the media would point these things out to the so-called "black leaders" in this country when they start saying the military is bias against minorities.

14
posted on 03/29/2003 6:28:08 AM PST
by txradioguy
(HOOAH! Not just a word, A way of life!)

It is no accident that an alternative media, in talk radio, the Internet and cable television has graciously risen up with a vengeance to report and analyze the news, without the artificial anti-Western filter through which much of the mainstream media often disseminates its news.

It is interesting that there us no such thing in Germany, for instance, as talk radio. Information, like everything thing else, is in the hands of a cartel. The German people have no tradition of freedom as we know it.

This is what they teach in liberal journalism colleges. For a news organization to pretend they are impartial in this conflict is the height of dishonesty - very few really are. And if after seeing Saddam in action they still are, I certainly wouldn't patronize them with my time. I don't want my news from someone who isn't outraged by a tyrant like Saddam.

You can wear a flag pin, support the troops, call them "we" (I mean, isn't that the truth?)and still be fair and objective about supporting the news.

Go Fox Go!

17
posted on 03/29/2003 6:46:17 AM PST
by I still care
(All evil needs to prosper is that good men do nothing)

"...analyst Eric Burns mildly chastised Fox's Shepherd Smith for his and other reporters' routine reference to American soldiers as "our troops." Burns said it would be better if reporters didn't taint their objectivity by identifying with America's troops."

Ok I'm gonna step up on my soapbox here for a minute. What the HELL is wrong with referring to U.S. soldiers as "our troops"? Are they not Americans like the reporters covering them? Since when did it become so wrong to cover our troops (oops...there's that nasty "our" word again)in a positive light? If you can gain access to them, go back and listen to the audio reports from the front lines of WW II and Korea. Go back and read the articles filed by Ernie Pyle. Pyle and the other journalists of his era would be absolutely excoriated by today's "experts". They wrote stories in such a way that you felt you were the person or people Pyle was covering. And there was nary a shred of neutrality that the pious media try to maintain today. I say "kudos' to Shep Smith. He's got the stones to not tuck his pro-American feelings in his pocket in the name of "professionalism". when the red light goes on. IMHO, if you wanna see the absolute shining example of restraint on air when it comes to letting his feeling show, I nominate David Asman. His adopted son is a Marine over there in the dirt as we speak. Yet from what I've seen, he's been a pro on the air the entire time. Knowing you've got to report on the deaths, the fighting and the bad as well as the good in this war to MILLIONS of viewers every day while a loved one is over there in harms way and could possible be one of the next casulties you have to announce is the PERFECT example of professionalism in journalism these days. Not arguing over the use of the word "our". Ok sopabox is now back in storage.

18
posted on 03/29/2003 6:53:26 AM PST
by txradioguy
(HOOAH! Not just a word, A way of life!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.